So apparently, the families of the victims of those recent highway killings are suing Rockstar Games, Take Two Interactive, Sony, and Walmart for (in turn) making, distributing, approving, and selling the game Grand Theft Auto III, which the two murderers cite as inspiration for their little spree.
The game developer forum that I participate in is in an uproar about it, naturally. Below is a repost of my own contribution to that thread:
quote:There's a disturbing trend these days to explain human behavior in terms of cause rather than motive. When someone commits a murder, and someone asks why, most of the answers that pop up are "because he was abused" or "because he had a mental disorder" or "because he played the wrong video games" and never "for a thrill" or "for money" or "for vengeance".
It is incredibly dehumanizing when we start talking about other people as though their behavior were determined by a mathematical confluence of outside factors, rather than by their own personal motives and choices. Part of what makes us human is the fact that we at least attempt to do more than merely react to outside stimuli. We have the ability to pursue imagined goals, create new tools, ideas, and artistic expressions, and defy our apparent fate to achieve something better. When we try to explain away our bad behavior as though it were caused by some outside factor beyond our control, then we ALSO deny much of what makes us great.
The latest crop of excuses for murder are about as valid as the old "devil made me do it" defense. We've turned the old "devil" into the target du jour — movies, games, music, abuse, mild psychological syndromes — but the excuse is the same. I wonder if we'll ever grow up.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Ah, yes, but isn't is just as sickening to hear them say the game is protected by the first amendment? Last I heard, they charge for those games. Free indeed Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I don't like the game, and I have no doubt that games have some influence, subconsiously, on people, but I don't disagree with what you said at all. In my opinion, you're exactly right.
But, is this anything new? I mean, haven't plenty of people already sued or attempted to sue Rockstar because of GTA3?
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Cool beans! I hope they win! Hopelessly full of crap though they may be. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The games are protected by the first amendment. Not sure what's sickening about it.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Hold on. Pooka, what's wrong with games being protected by the first amendment?
And Sun, why do you think Rockstar should pay massive sums of money because an admitted murderer blames their game for his own behavior? I mean, a murderer could blame ANY violent media they had viewed as an inspiration for their crimes if they wanted to. They picked Grand Theft Auto, so now it's Rockstar's fault?
Sure, these kids could shoot at cars in the fantasy world of Liberty City. But they are the ones who decided to do it in real life. They made that choice. None of the other millions of players did. Just these two. It's not like they didn't know the difference between the game and reality. It's not like they were playing some magically hypnotic version of the game that no one else got. They are the ones who decided to kill.
Why are we so eager to abandon that fact in favor of blaming a company that very reponsibly published an M-rated violent game aimed at adults? I mean, they even set the sequel in the eighties and filled it with nostalgia that only appealed to people in their twenties and over. Even if the games WERE magically hypnotic, Rockstar does not market them to children. Lazy parents give them to children. That's not the same thing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I didn't say it was untrue, but it is still sickening. First amendment protects my right to say so, neh?
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Okay, wait a sec, I'm getting the sense that Sun may have been joking. Smiley and all ... but still, do you really hope they win?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Of course, if you see the Constitution as the be-all and end-all when it comes to morals.
Yes, they have the right to, but that doesn't make it not sickening.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Well, yes, Pooka. No one's telling you you're not allowed to say so. We're just wondering why you feel that way.
For crying out loud, everyone's sickened by the first amendment thing, and nobody is saying why!
[ November 12, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
I don't believe for a second that this sort of lawsuit is anything other than money-grabbing. I agree with aRND - these kids had a choice. They chose to go shoot people. They knew it was wrong, they knew that it was immoral but they did it because they were indulgent selfish dipsticks with no concience or empathy.
The game made them do it. If you believe that you're a complete tool.
You know what? I was a violent kid. I had loving parents, a stable home environment and no computer games and EXTREMELY resticted TV viewing in a fundamentalist religious household. I used to be taken by these rages would beat the living snot out of anyone who had provoked me into it.
I grew out of it. I studied Tae Kwon Do and learned to control my temper etc etc etc.
But I've been out of home for eleven years now and have been playing ludicrously violent games the entire time. Yeah, there are times when you want to take a gun to some idiot or run a fool off the road.
But you don't do it.
Why? Because it's wrong, it's immoral and you know it.
The way we live our lives is all about choice.
These guys made a choice, and the game merely provided the staging, not the motive.
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
"do you really hope they win?"
Well, just about as much as I've ever hoped for something that's obviously wrong to happen, but I guess not. I've just got a vandetta against big buisness.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote: I mean, a murderer could blame ANY violent media they had viewed as an inspiration for their crimes if they wanted to.
Actually, it doesn't have to be violent; only taken in a violent way. Example: Helter Skelter.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
i'm so confused, pooka, was that a bad pun?
Posted by suntranafs (Member # 3318) on :
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But video games sure as hell don't kill people.
[ November 12, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: suntranafs ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Last I heard, they charge for those games. Free indeed
I think that you are improperly conflating two definitions of the word "free." Freedom of speech has little, if anything, to do with whether or not the "speech" is sold for profit.
quote:Why are we so eager to abandon that fact in favor of blaming a company that very reponsibly published an M-rated violent game aimed at adults?
There's an easy answer to your question, Geoff: because people these days don't believe in personal responsibility.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Actually, it doesn't have to be violent; only taken in a violent way. Example: Helter Skelter.
Another example: Jodie Foster
Sun, maybe we see this different ways, but if I had a vendetta against a large class of entities (which I don't), I personally would rather see them taken down for the right reasons, and not for reasons that could spawn a myriad of their own problems.
And it's not like Rockstar is some giant megaconglomerate. They're a relatively young publisher in the company of EA and Activision. They should be the goodguy here ...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It’s one thing to think the game is sickening, it’s another to think that appealing to the First Amendment to protect the game is sickening.
Holding the first opinion is intelligent. Holding the second is sickening. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I don't think a violent video game causes violent behavior any more than watching kiddie porn makes people want to have sex with children.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
So are you saying that they do make people violent, or that the only people that will be attracted to such games are people who are already violent?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
A combination. A lot of the second, and a little of the first.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The first amendment wasn't created so that people won't get high blood pressure from not expressing themselves. It was created because media is necessary to bring about change. Now from the outside you can't necessarily tell which is which, and sometimes the former is a step toward the latter.
Invoking the first amendment in this case doesn't advance Dog's argument because having the right to do something doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of doing it.
And the first amendment doesn't protect the right to incite insurrection and disorder, any more than it protects the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. This will probably be the aruging pivot of the case. Sigh. I guess in a sense the Matrix is impermissable under this view.
As for my bad pun, I thought it would be better than just typing :bump:. Sorry if I offended you. I don't know why I'm so surly lately.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:A combination. A lot of the second, and a little of the first.
In any event, I disagree with both of those statements.
I will say that it's likely that people with violent tendencies would be attracted to such games (which is different from saying they'd be the only ones), and it's possible that violent video games might nudge an unstable person with latent violent tendencies enough to start expressing such tendencies.
However, I think that, in general, most people are neither violent nor unstable enough for this to happen, and given the rising popularity of video games across demographics, I'd say it's unlikely that the gaming population has a markedly higher proportion of violent or unstable people.
[Edit: wording]
[ November 12, 2003, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Very sneaky...sneak the "only" in there.
And I agree. The majority aren't unstable enough.
But the minority who are are the ones for whom a game showing how fun it can be to shoot prostitutes will make a difference.
I don't think they should win this suit, by any means. But for Geoff to compare it to "the devil made me do it"...well, I don't think that's accurate. We are influenced by thousands of outside factors, and I don't find it dehumanizing at all to say that they have much weight in our behavior.
I've known too many dumb kids do things they've seen elsewhere just to be cool. Where do they get the idea that it would make them cool?
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
We are influenced by our environment and experiences, for sure, and teenagers do stupid things to be cool, true, but I think there's a giant difference between a teen doing drugs or driving drunk or having unprotected sex than one who goes around killing prostitutes and driving over pedestrians on purpose.
I think the people who are unstable and violent enough to have a video game (or song or movie or whatever) influence them enough to go commit violent acts constitute not just a minority, but a vast minority. Should the entire gaming community be suspect because of a few sick individuals?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
If they win, the VG industry is going to become very, -very- boring.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Frisco, there's a difference between recognizing your influences, and BLAMING your influences. If we start acting as though outside influences ABSOLVE us of our decisions, then our moral and legal systems have no way to hold anyone accountable for harmful behavior.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I'm not saying that they should be legally liable.
quote from me:
quote:I don't think they should win this suit, by any means.
I'm just saying they're partly to blame for making this child what he is. So are a lot of things. And these things are only getting more and more acceptable to society.
I'm not saying we can't promote these things, just questioning whether we should. The amount of teen violence has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. Maybe it's just coincidence that society has also become that much more acceptant of violence, but I, personally, can't believe that.
The tradeoff isn't worth it to me, but I guess I'm not the one making the quick buck.
[ November 12, 2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:pooka said: And the first amendment doesn't protect the right to incite insurrection and disorder, any more than it protects the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. This will probably be the aruging pivot of the case.
No, actually. “Incitement” can only be used to regulate speech designed to produce “imminent lawless action.” It’s not at all analogous to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, since that is calculated to immediately endanger people.
See this for more info.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Frisco, you sure about those crime rates?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Hmm... next time someone runs around killing people because, "God told him to" I'm going to look for people trying to sue his church/ban whatever holy literature he upheld as the truth.
I mean, it's passing the buck in just the same way. But people who say God told them to are loopy and people who say video games/movies/music told them to have a point.
Posted by Caleb Varns (Member # 946) on :
I just love facts.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Those are interesting statistics, so I searched a bit.
The teen murder rate did, in fact, peak in 1993. Though it has dropped dramatically.
So, violence as a whole is dropping, which would explain the teen violence numbers as dropping...but they're making up an increasing percentage of our prison populations.
While I see that the number of actual crimes has decreased, I don't think that means they're less violent. I think it means we're better about keeping them in jail. We're better about keeping an eye on the areas where violence is predicted, but it's cropping up in places we don't expect.
Thesesites, purported to be from the same sources as those in your links, state the opposite: that teens are becoming more violent. I wonder if a guy writing a book on the myths of teen violence would try and find statistics that agreed with him?
[ November 12, 2003, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
This discussion worries me.
Because I think I agree with everything Frisco has said in this thread.
And that has got to be a Sign. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Maybe it just seems like they're more violent because they are committing a larger proportion of crimes.
Your link doesn't say they are committing a larger proportion of crimes, but "Juveniles held for person offenses were a greater proportion of the public custody population in 1995 than in 1983." which is not the same thing.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Edit: You're right. They're not the same. But the spirit is the same. The percent of the population made up by violent teens has grown against other groups of criminals.
[ November 12, 2003, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
But how do you explain that violent teenagers make up a larger proportion of the prison population if you don't think they're committing an equally proportionate numbers of crimes? Have they gotten stupider in the last 20 years, and are just getting caught more frequently than other groups?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
This shows the percentage of crimes committed by juveniles. I think I wasn't clear earlier. I'm not saying that juveniles don't necessarily commit a larger number of crimes, proportionally, than their adult counterparts. The discussion here is whether video games in general, or GTA specifically, causes more violent crimes.
As you can see from the link, juvenile crimes have pretty much stayed the same over the last 30 years. If there was, indeed, some kidn of correlation between video games and crime , we should see a dramatic shift in crimes done by juveniles (edit: to correspond with the large increase of video game consumption), and in fact, that I can see, we don't.
Edit: And even with a large increase, we need to tunnel in on video games being causitive.....
[ November 12, 2003, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Drugs don't kill people, I do. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The relevant argument in my view is whether a very violent game, like GTA, supposedly decreases aggression (by allowing people to "let it out") or if it increases it. Or if we are all so dispassionate and rational that it has no effect.
I believe media violence (and porn, and probably internet arguments) are addictive, meaning they are in some way self-gratifying but also desensitizing so that more stimulus is required for satisfaction in the future.
Aaah. :lights up:
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Yeah, rivka. I'm agreeing with Frisco more and more lately, which is scary, 'cause he's an idiot!
He has said they shouldn't win. He's not saying we should pass the buch instead of taking responsibility for our actions. But acknowledging the truths that people are responsible for their own actions, that blaming others for what we do undermines our own dignity, and that speech should be protected as much as possible until it begins to impinge on the rights of others, does not mean that we should go to the silly extreme of shutting our eyes to the fact that the messages people--and kids especially--receive do impact them. No, Rockstar is not responsible, but I'd hardly call them "the good guy" either.
It's kind of like when OSC rails against some perceived Hollywood/literati/academe message destructive to families or small towns or whatever. He's not saying that their first ammendment rights should be curtailed, but that the message they are sending is, in his eyes, immoral.
If you worked in an urban or semi-urban public school, I doubt you could continue to think of this game as a good thing, or of its publishers as good guys.
And no, I don't think they should lose the lawsuit.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
With all the work we've done trying to prevent violent crime, doesn't it make sense that there's something countering that for the rates to stay virtually the same?
We're working hard against actual violence, but becoming more accepting of media glorifying it. I think we're treading water.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Good point. I don't have the answer. There are a lot of culprits out there which are known to have effects on violence--poverty, lack of parental involvement, etc. However, I blame the Mormons.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Well there's something we can all agree on!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Amen, Brother Storm!
[ November 12, 2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If they win, the VG industry is going to become very, -very- boring.
Hmmm...
If this is true, and the only excitement the VG industry can come up with these days is extreme violence, I think the industry has a much bigger problem to deal with.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
How many of you can honestly say that if you saw a flashing box with a question mark on it, you wouldn't go up and punch it?
I rest my case.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: How many of you can honestly say that if you saw a flashing box with a question mark on it, you wouldn't go up and punch it?
Me. But then again, I'm not sure what video game that comes from. Is that a Super Mario Bros thing? Sounds vaguely familiar, from the one time I played it 15+ years ago. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Dames. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
My sister happens to love video games of all kinds.
I prefer Tetris. And card games like rummy and pyramid.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Rat Named Dog,
I hate to burst your bubble, but did you see the recent picture of those kids on CNN (I lost the link...I knew I had it here a minute ago...).
If you zoom in real close to where you can read the box cover, you can see (in bright yellow on red words) the phrase: Magical Hypnotic Version!!
We love you and all that, but please get your facts straight before you post!
--Steve
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Rivka,
Tetris?!? Tetris is a horrible game! Recently, two kids were arrested for throwing brightly painted cinder blocks off of an overpass onto cars below. When brought to trial, they blamed the influence of Tetris. Turns out, only two weeks before, they were throwing huge, brown wooden barrels off the same overpass!
--Steve
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
And don't forget those kids that went on that rampage where they climbed up the sides of buildings and punched holes in them.
Or the teens who all OD'd after playing Dr. Mario.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I 'spose it's a good thing that in CA we don't use cinder blocks that much.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
You know, Matrix 2 is just like a live action version of Mario 2, where you squat down until you glow and then you can fly!
Posted by Psycho Triad (Member # 3331) on :
I know that I've always wanted to spit fireballs. And when someone angers me, I know that I could easily vanquish them either by bouncing on their head, or by picking up the nearest object and throwing it at them.
Oh .. and eating random mushrooms make you feel huge and all powerful, man!
{edit : it really helps to read both pages of a thread before responding to a question.
Crazy as always, Psychotriad
[ November 13, 2003, 12:46 AM: Message edited by: Psycho Triad ]
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I played Tron, so all I did was throw frisbees at stuff.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I blame Galaga for my aversion to flies.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Someone put forth the question: Do violent games reduce aggression by venting it, or build aggression by fueling it?
I suggest a third alternative: The thrill of a violent video game is a wholly different emotional experience than the anger which leads to physical aggression. In real life, people kill because they are angry, afraid, etc. In a game, people kill because it's part of a fun and challenging fictional experience. I don't think anyone kills in a video game because they are angry at the fictional characters, or because they are afraid of imminent death. They do it for the same reason that soccer players kick balls into goals, and that football players sack each other. It's part of the game.
The kids in this lawsuit are a rare case because apparently, they saw real-life killing as a game. This kind of disconnection with society and reality is a different sort of problem from aggression. They did not play an aggression-fueling game until they were just so filled up with rage they had to run out and murder someone. I get the impression that they went out and killed people because they were bored, frustrated kids with little sense of right and wrong. For that, we don't need to make games less violent. We need to make games more fun and parents more involved.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I play RPGs, so I'm constantly obsessed with building experience points at work, so I can level up. Which can cause a serious detriment to my Constitution and Charisma ...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
"Video games certainly do not kill people."
Well, they can, if you hit the person with it hard enough, just under the....um, nevermind.
If they win what will make the video game industry boring is not the lack of Extremely Violent games, but the lack of any violence portrayed in any game, for with that precedent what game company would want to risk a lawsuit, even one sure to fail.
You say that Vice City is too violent, how about Sim City? How about someone who sues over Sim Neighborhood because the saw what happens when you don't put a door in a building, and the sim died, and they thougth that would be neat to try on thier RL Neighbor.
Not likely? If you were producing Sim City Neighborhood, would you think the risk not worth the fun of adding those scenes?
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Is SIM Neighborhood sorta like The SIMS? Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
If they rule against the video game industry...then what about suing the movie industry for violent movies...tv studios for violent tv shows, etc. It is a slippery slope once it is ruled that you aren't responsible for your own actions.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:If you worked in an urban or semi-urban public school, I doubt you could continue to think of this game as a good thing, or of its publishers as good guys.
I worked in urban high schools for three years in college and I think that teen violence is much more strongly influenced by poverty, perceived lack of efficacy, desperation, lack of good role models, and actual violence than by violence in the media.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:poverty, perceived lack of efficacy, desperation, lack of good role models, and actual violence
Yes.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dawg- if the emotions aren't the same, then in what way is the game exciting? Personally, I am not okay with my spouse viewing porn because it isn't the same as actual adultery. But I guess I will now have to reexamine my Unabashed Fandom Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you worked in an urban or semi-urban public school, I doubt you could continue to think of this game as a good thing, or of its publishers as good guys. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I worked in urban high schools for three years in college and I think that teen violence is much more strongly influenced by poverty, perceived lack of efficacy, desperation, lack of good role models, and actual violence than by violence in the media.
All of that is granted in my prior post. But reply to the sentence you quoted. Are you saying, then, that this game is a positive thing?
Are you saying that this game is not a negative thing?
Look, I said in my post that I didn't think the families should win this lawsuit. I'm a big defender of free speech, and other freedoms where we trust people to be mature, instead of needing to be protected from everything. But I think sometimes we go to the extreme of believing that speech should be protected because all speech is good or appropriate. And it is not. All speech is not good or appropriate. Some speech and art is destructive. Some of it is irresponsible. And we should protect it anyway because the cost to us as a society of not doing so (i.e., the loss of free speech) is greater than the cost of protecting it (i.e., socially destructive messages propagated through media and art).
It's all well and good to say we need more positive role-models. I agree with you. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there are people making a buck through titillating and gratuitous images of violence and destructive sexuality, and it doesn't take away from the fact that this is wrong. Sadly, there is a cumulative effect in our society, so that our good role models are having to compete with negative messages that are being repeated all over the place, and sometimes they get drowned out in the din.
Sometimes it's a bit facile to look at a violent kid, or a drug dealer, and say "Oh well, s/he didn't have good role models. It's the parents' fault." From time to time, though, you meet a kid in this circumstance who does have loving and caring parents who provide a good example. And it wasn't enough for whatever reason. Sometimes the good role models lose the competition for the kid's soul.
All kids have positive role models, negative role models, and their own decisions. They should certainly bear responsibility for their decisions. But I think we go a bit too far when we say that all the negative messages they get are okay. I think there's a whole spectrum of gray in there.
I think I'm trying to strike a middle ground here. Free speech is all well and good. I'm for it. But what about social responsibility? I'm not talking about outlawing games and suing their makers, just using my right to speak freely and say that this game is being marketed primarily to teens, despite Rockstar's claims to the contrary, and despite the game's rating, and that this game contains some pretty extreme stuff. Not only do I not think Rockstar is the good guy, I think they are pretty immoral.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:If you worked in an urban or semi-urban public school, I doubt you could continue to think of this game as a good thing, or of its publishers as good guys.
If you leave out everything before the comma, then you would be absolutely right to criticize me for not responding to the spirit of this question. However, to me anyway, the sentence as written implies that anyone who has worked in an urban or semi-urban public school would know that violent video games are a prime contributing factor to teen violence. And I just can't get behind a statement like that. Now, if that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.
quote:It's all well and good to say we need more positive role-models. I agree with you. But that doesn't take away from the fact that there are people making a buck through titillating and gratuitous images of violence and destructive sexuality, and it doesn't take away from the fact that this is wrong. Sadly, there is a cumulative effect in our society, so that our good role models are having to compete with negative messages that are being repeated all over the place, and sometimes they get drowned out in the din.
I'm also not sure that I can agree that such depictions are absolutely morally wrong. I mean, from the get-go I have a problem with absolute moral statements. But supposing that we can say that it is absolutely morally wrong to do so because it contributes to delinquent attitudes amongst our citizenry, I still don't know that I can get behind it, because I don't really think that it alone is much of a contributor. Japan's popular media routinely depicts violence and sexuality (and violent sex) that most Americans would find shocking and there is far less violent crime there than here. It's easy enough to say "Well they have a different culture," but I think that's exactly the point. When a society as a whole doesn't do enough to teach a sense of obligation to its young people, then things like this can become a problem.
quote:Sometimes it's a bit facile to look at a violent kid, or a drug dealer, and say "Oh well, s/he didn't have good role models. It's the parents' fault." From time to time, though, you meet a kid in this circumstance who does have loving and caring parents who provide a good example. And it wasn't enough for whatever reason. Sometimes the good role models lose the competition for the kid's soul.
Yes, you do sometimes see that. However, I highly doubt that you see many kids with good parents, in affluent neighborhoods, with responsible peers behaving this way.
quote:All kids have positive role models, negative role models, and their own decisions. They should certainly bear responsibility for their decisions. But I think we go a bit too far when we say that all the negative messages they get are okay. I think there's a whole spectrum of gray in there.
Yes, they should certainly bear responsibility for their decisions. I think you are also saying that just saying "They're responsible for themselves" and leaving it at that is ludicrous. We do need to try to give kids good role models, and we do need to try to instill the right values in kids. I just think that focusing on things like popular media is not the right thing to do when, in my opinion, poverty, powerlessness, and peer pressure are so much more of a problem. But those are harder problems to tackle, so we choose to focus on the easy things.
I don't think we really disagree here, it's just a question of degree. You think that this game company is morally wrong because of the message that they are sending. I'm saying maybe that's true, but only if the message is being received, and I don't think that it's being received on a significant level.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Are you saying that this game is not a negative thing?
It's not the kind of game I would just give to a child, but if you found someone lying on the ground with a broken leg, an open jugular, a tiger sitting on their chest, and a splinter in their finger ... why would you immediately start pulling the splinter?
Compared to the other influences that have a much greater, measurable impact on a child's behavior, I can't imagine why this game should even be a major priority. Its developers certainly should not be considered solely liable for their customers' behavior.
Handing this game off to a kid is a bad idea because it's healthier for children to have a measured and guided exposure to the horrors of life, rather than just being tossed out into the middle of it and forced to figure it out for themselves. But it is ALSO a good thing that we are free to express the horrors of life in fictional contexts like Grand Theft Auto, for the benefit of adults.
Grand Theft Auto isn't the most uplifting of game franchises, I'll be the first to tell you. But it isn't an apocalyptic danger to our children. We have far worse things to worry about in the real world — and if we actually did manage to fix the other problems in our children's lives, then they would be healthy enough and morally conscious enough to approach Grand Theft Auto like adults, and it would have no negative effect.
I just think we need to address the real problem instead of the tiny side-effects. It's like we've got a giant dead horse in our kitchen, and we're swatting flies. We do ourselves a huge disservice by running around assigning massive amounts of blame to insignificant factors, while ignoring the core problems. I mean, who cares what game or movie or song inspired these kids' M.O? I'd much rather find out who raised them not to care if their neighbors live or die.
By the way, I learned all my analogies from video games Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We have a winner!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
How many of us here would say that "media" (TV, radio, billboards, print, films, and video-games) has an impact on our behavior?
Or, put another way: who here would spend $1 million (US) on 30 seconds of media access?
Violent video games are certainly not the sole cause of physical violence among children and/or adults, but it is certainly a component. I'm not exactly sure where it falls on the spectrum, but I personally believe that it's somewhere above swatting flies (but below the dead horse).
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
If you're trying to say that changing what brand of beer you buy and killing people are even close to being the same thing, I will respectfully have to disagree.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Depends on the brand of beer.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Good point.
Who in their right mind ever gave Pabst a blue ribbon?
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Geoff . . . you're answering a comment of mine, but not really my post.
I haven't said that the producers of the game should be liable, or that they're the primary culprits.
Just that they claim it's a game for adults, but they clearly market it to teenagers and early teenagers, and that this is irresponsible on their part.
No, it's not the only thing wrong with our society, or the worst. But since when do we ignore things that are wrong on that account?
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
... but still, do you really hope they win?
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Me. But then again, I'm not sure what video game that comes from. Is that a Super Mario Bros thing? Sounds vaguely familiar, from the one time I played it 15+ years ago. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)